texanguy
02-02 01:45 PM
previously discussed.
check out my post and gc28262 's response in the following link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23111&page=2
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
check out my post and gc28262 's response in the following link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23111&page=2
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
jsb
11-14 12:11 PM
Well, are you sure I would need to work for this "future employer" for 6 months?
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
With LC, I-140 and I-485 process, intentions of employee/employer relationship are expected to be bonafide, otherwise it would be fraud. Although a lot of people mention here, and some attorneys suggest, to work for 6 months for the sponsoring employer, there doesn't appear to be any law on that. Circumstances can change any time (AC21 supports that). Therefore, six month, or whatever period you may want to fix, is merely to strength the case that the sponsorship was bonafide. AC21 guidelines are quite lenient in that matter.
Bottomline is whatever happened, or you can provide, to support that there was no fraudulent intent, you are fine. If situation is not clear, and someone decides to contend, courts may come into picture.
Some people mention that six-month working could haunt you at citizenship time, but I doubt that. USCIS have a lot of other things to look at. If you have been a good citizen until then you should be fine.
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
With LC, I-140 and I-485 process, intentions of employee/employer relationship are expected to be bonafide, otherwise it would be fraud. Although a lot of people mention here, and some attorneys suggest, to work for 6 months for the sponsoring employer, there doesn't appear to be any law on that. Circumstances can change any time (AC21 supports that). Therefore, six month, or whatever period you may want to fix, is merely to strength the case that the sponsorship was bonafide. AC21 guidelines are quite lenient in that matter.
Bottomline is whatever happened, or you can provide, to support that there was no fraudulent intent, you are fine. If situation is not clear, and someone decides to contend, courts may come into picture.
Some people mention that six-month working could haunt you at citizenship time, but I doubt that. USCIS have a lot of other things to look at. If you have been a good citizen until then you should be fine.
funny
01-29 06:30 PM
Sam thing happened with my wife, USCIS denied her I131 saying they have already approved the 485 so no need for I131. My lawyer thinks that this was a mistake from USCIS and we applied for her I131 again.
Hope this helps.
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
Hope this helps.
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
tuhin
07-17 11:04 PM
Thanks again folks... I will get in touch with a lawyer and let y'all know what I learn.
more...
EndlessWait
12-13 02:55 PM
its a "carrot dangling" technique used by the immigration system here to make u "modern day slave" to get things done....they will take ur SS taxes and make u wait until you realize and give up and go back
i really wish the reality of this immigration was known to me when I came..I wasted my career waiting in this GC wait.... :mad:
i really wish the reality of this immigration was known to me when I came..I wasted my career waiting in this GC wait.... :mad:
arnet
09-15 01:18 PM
if they take the bill, they might listen to us and include our provisions in this bill because our provisions are part of the CIR bill which they passed it.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.
more...
renupond
10-05 03:43 PM
Thanks for the giving link for reply. so I understand that she can work & start her own company to work as independent consultant.
Now I am curious to know..about move from H1 to EAD for her.
can she move from H1 to EAD immediately?
what are pros & cons by moving from h1 to EAD. As she already hv her SSN because of H1. do we need to inform about ead to SSN office? Also what kind of company she can have on EAD (corp,LLC)?
what is the procedure to hv own company? Steps to follow for Independent contracting? Taxes for independent contract earnings?
Also what if after a move she stopped independent contracting? two scenarios may be either join another company as employee or if she stopped working. in that case do we need to close the company?
Once she have her own company then she will work thru that company corp-to-corp or 1099??
Sorry...so many series of questions...but since this area is new.
appreciate your help.
Thanks in advance.
Now I am curious to know..about move from H1 to EAD for her.
can she move from H1 to EAD immediately?
what are pros & cons by moving from h1 to EAD. As she already hv her SSN because of H1. do we need to inform about ead to SSN office? Also what kind of company she can have on EAD (corp,LLC)?
what is the procedure to hv own company? Steps to follow for Independent contracting? Taxes for independent contract earnings?
Also what if after a move she stopped independent contracting? two scenarios may be either join another company as employee or if she stopped working. in that case do we need to close the company?
Once she have her own company then she will work thru that company corp-to-corp or 1099??
Sorry...so many series of questions...but since this area is new.
appreciate your help.
Thanks in advance.
immi2006
05-04 10:41 AM
THose are labour filed.
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
Hi Immi2006.
Please help me understanding this..
Your statistics underneath::; 1) Is it NO. of Labour Petitions filed in those years and categories or 2) Are they Numbers of Labor and 140 approved pending cases for 485?:confused:
Please enlighten me....
thanks:)
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
Hi Immi2006.
Please help me understanding this..
Your statistics underneath::; 1) Is it NO. of Labour Petitions filed in those years and categories or 2) Are they Numbers of Labor and 140 approved pending cases for 485?:confused:
Please enlighten me....
thanks:)
more...
akgind
04-21 06:18 PM
Well California is not same....they took 4 months to renew my lisence....and its purely based on the expiry of the H1B I-94 :mad:
I renewed my CA license last year. Gave them my expiring license, SS card, and proof of residence. Got new DL valid till 2011. I am on H-1 with a valid EAD.
I renewed my CA license last year. Gave them my expiring license, SS card, and proof of residence. Got new DL valid till 2011. I am on H-1 with a valid EAD.
GCard_Dream
06-18 04:42 PM
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
more...
chinna2003
07-03 09:13 AM
Sorry if you find it offensive, but I dont think its going to prove anything to the USCIS and I am not even sure they will notice it.
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
Please read, sign and observe
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
Please read, sign and observe
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
amitjoey
07-09 04:23 PM
Gave it 5 star, and posted a comment.
more...
a_yaja
01-07 04:07 PM
Thank you all for your repiles. I have asked my wife to talk to their lawyer directly.
freddy22
07-17 06:52 PM
There is a very good chance that the gov't will seek to remove your son from the US even if he is only found guilty of misdemeanors.
And why is that?
The misdemeanors could be NOT CMT....only CMT crimes are deportable or serious felonys right?
If the crimes are not crimes of moral turpitude then they are not deportable under immigration law?
Please explain your viewpoint as to why you think they would deport someone with a record of misdemeanors that are NOT CMT
And why is that?
The misdemeanors could be NOT CMT....only CMT crimes are deportable or serious felonys right?
If the crimes are not crimes of moral turpitude then they are not deportable under immigration law?
Please explain your viewpoint as to why you think they would deport someone with a record of misdemeanors that are NOT CMT
more...
h1b_tristate
07-27 09:16 PM
Currently my labor and 1-140 has been approved. But i havent been able to apply for I-485 due to retrogression. Hence if i change my job now and re-apply for labor will i continue to get extentions?
Also can anyone advice me that for a PERM application the pre-application i.e advertisements and stuff takes how long before i can actually apply for the labor. Also in Perm How long does one have to do the pre-application (advertisments etc)?
Can someone please help?
Also can anyone advice me that for a PERM application the pre-application i.e advertisements and stuff takes how long before i can actually apply for the labor. Also in Perm How long does one have to do the pre-application (advertisments etc)?
Can someone please help?
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzfOTQZzb-3qpBnYpA5GgUuiIFz7ASkvnkxDNW3AOHedMqDbkxCN8Np2ERnEZupA-ezsGq8OznYAS5fwmfguZb8lG-8y-kEbhaVjt7z1FWmqnIg3OYGylUxSdJSA0auqP7xxgpyyIStyo/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzfOTQZzb-3qpBnYpA5GgUuiIFz7ASkvnkxDNW3AOHedMqDbkxCN8Np2ERnEZupA-ezsGq8OznYAS5fwmfguZb8lG-8y-kEbhaVjt7z1FWmqnIg3OYGylUxSdJSA0auqP7xxgpyyIStyo/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzfOTQZzb-3qpBnYpA5GgUuiIFz7ASkvnkxDNW3AOHedMqDbkxCN8Np2ERnEZupA-ezsGq8OznYAS5fwmfguZb8lG-8y-kEbhaVjt7z1FWmqnIg3OYGylUxSdJSA0auqP7xxgpyyIStyo/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzfOTQZzb-3qpBnYpA5GgUuiIFz7ASkvnkxDNW3AOHedMqDbkxCN8Np2ERnEZupA-ezsGq8OznYAS5fwmfguZb8lG-8y-kEbhaVjt7z1FWmqnIg3OYGylUxSdJSA0auqP7xxgpyyIStyo/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
more...
pragir
12-18 01:50 PM
We got our mexican visa (going to mexico on vacation for 10 days) two weeks ago in Raleigh, NC. It was a breeze. I got a list of things that they wanted to see including
1. passport
2. US visa or approved I-797
3. Proof of residence in US (house tax bill etc.)
4. Air itinerary
5. Completed visa application form
6. 2 passport size photos
7. $36 per person visa fee
The process was fairly smooth. I was able to get my passport with visa the next day. My friends went a week later early in the morning and were able to get their visa with an hour and half on same day.
1. passport
2. US visa or approved I-797
3. Proof of residence in US (house tax bill etc.)
4. Air itinerary
5. Completed visa application form
6. 2 passport size photos
7. $36 per person visa fee
The process was fairly smooth. I was able to get my passport with visa the next day. My friends went a week later early in the morning and were able to get their visa with an hour and half on same day.
ramaa
06-21 11:00 PM
Thank you for reply.
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
shishya
09-01 08:21 PM
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
felix31
02-12 11:36 PM
I am holding H-4 visa, last week, I made an appointment in Ottawa consulate so I want to get my H4 before I go.
My wife's H-1 and my H-4 filed together, so I called the lawyer, we paid $1000 premium fee, it was paid on Friday, both H-1 and H-4 got certified on Monday (it only takes 1 day compared with 3 months).
Once you file premium for H-1, H-4 will get premium. but if you file them separately (in different time), then you can not do it this way.
Good luck.
thats exactly what we will do as BOTH H1& H4 were filed together (they both expire on the same date).
Hopefully, H4 will get picked up with H1.
My wife's H-1 and my H-4 filed together, so I called the lawyer, we paid $1000 premium fee, it was paid on Friday, both H-1 and H-4 got certified on Monday (it only takes 1 day compared with 3 months).
Once you file premium for H-1, H-4 will get premium. but if you file them separately (in different time), then you can not do it this way.
Good luck.
thats exactly what we will do as BOTH H1& H4 were filed together (they both expire on the same date).
Hopefully, H4 will get picked up with H1.
Asian
12-07 09:26 AM
Hi,
I am EB-3 ROW, PD in Nov.03, I-140 approved. I am planning on changing my current employer (non profit) to for-profit company.
I am in my H-1 B fifth year. I renewed once on my third year. By the time I change my job to the new employer, I will have about one year left in my current H-1B.
If I change the employer, will I be subject to H-1 B visa quota restriction?
I have stayed with my current employer (University) for five years just for the hope of green card. But I think this is time to move on. Staying in my current job is so detrimental to my career.
However, if the new company that may hire me, cannot find any H-1 B visa quota left for me, I will be in trouble if it is the case.
I would appreciate your advice very much.
Thank you always.
I am EB-3 ROW, PD in Nov.03, I-140 approved. I am planning on changing my current employer (non profit) to for-profit company.
I am in my H-1 B fifth year. I renewed once on my third year. By the time I change my job to the new employer, I will have about one year left in my current H-1B.
If I change the employer, will I be subject to H-1 B visa quota restriction?
I have stayed with my current employer (University) for five years just for the hope of green card. But I think this is time to move on. Staying in my current job is so detrimental to my career.
However, if the new company that may hire me, cannot find any H-1 B visa quota left for me, I will be in trouble if it is the case.
I would appreciate your advice very much.
Thank you always.
